PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying [AITA] Group interaction



Lisselys
2021-03-12, 12:07 PM
Hello everybody!

I'm sorry if this sounds a lot like a rant, but I'm seriously in doubt about what to do and if, as the title says, I'm the A.
I'll try to be as honest as possible, and if you want more details I'll be happy to give them.



I've been playing a game online with my friends since last September. For those interested, it's a 5e D&D game. It's a pretty standard game, and although we had some discussions, pretty much everything was fine and everyone had fun.
I should make a disclaimer right now, to give you some kind of perspective: I'm a pretty loud and center-of-attention type, and right now I'm playing a bard. This would make you shiver, but trust me, it's not that bad.
My character thinks everything that happens around him is based on a story, and everything will follow story rules: BBEG, evil villains, plot twist, secondary quests, etc etc.
This does not mean in any way that he is stupid, just that he will try to justify everything that happens around him by saying that his party is the heroes party of this story, and we are going to save the world. I don't usually steal the scene from other players, and while I admit that sometimes I interfere with their actions (this is something we always did, and other players also sometimes did it to me) I never intentionally undermined their actions. This means that if they are monologuing I won't interfere, but 50% of the time I will be the one arguing with the BBEG instead of other players.
My rants usually go about boosting other characters' power, saying that they are the heroes and that everyone should look up to them etc etc. , but still.

The point is, I talk a lot. And it's pretty much fine at my table, no one ever complained too much (I asked) and I realize when I should shut up and just give other players their glory.


However, last 2 sessions something different happened. Another friend of ours joined our party. The introduction was pretty quick, since my character just assumed that since he is in a story and there was a single adventurer alone in a crowd, with no actual guidance, he should be our new party member (we lost an npc not long ago). (Yeah, I forced things a little, but it was for the sake of the group and everyone just went along with it, since it allowed us to play together faster)
His character is a Drow, and our first encounter went pretty well. We were outside a city that was overcrowding with refugees, and we basically helped them ease the crowd that was trying to get in.
All was good.


Last session, tho, while we were in the city, another character started giving food to the refugees, starting a small fight.
In an attempt to ease the crowd, I went in the middle of the plaza where refugees were camped and tried to give a little speech about being thankful to the city and the guards, and that the heroes will save them and give them their cities back.
I landed a nice roll, succeding, but then the new player started actively trying to sabotage me and pissing people off, by countering every argument of mine in order to sow chaos. Whatever I would say, he would just shift argument in order to piss more people off and getting them out at me.
I tried my best but still, we needed the intervention of the mayor of the city in order to calm the crowd, basically meaning that we failed to calm the city and we didn't achieve our goal of starting with a positive influence on the refugees.
Now, let me be clear, the entire group and I always had fun and poked each other in game, but actively undermining another character's action is a big no no for me, and no one ever did this to another player.
I understand that he is playing as a "chaotic" type of character, but still. I didn't wanna speak up about it and, after a while, I excused myself and went offline. I may be a little whiny about not having my cake and eating it too, but it seriously hurt me how he actively tried to antagonize me while, in theory, we are playing together.
Now, and this is why I feel I'm the A**, is that instead of talking to him I spoke to the DM about how I felt, and he disclosed to me that he actually allowed him to play a "douchy" type of character in order to spice things up. He felt pretty bad about his choice, and I feel like I put him in a rough spot.

Was it wrong to speak about it with my DM? How should I have handled this discussion?
Thank you very much for all your inputs!

Darth Credence
2021-03-12, 12:47 PM
Well.

First, I would definitely say NTA. While it may be best to go directly to the player that you are in conflict with, the DM pretty much has to take the role of arbiter when things like this come up. Ideally, you would talk to the person, and if nothing could be resolved, you bring the DM in, but this doesn't seem like an egregious violation.

In fact, based on the answers from the DM, I think the way you went about it ended up being better. If you had talked to him, he may very well have fallen back on the idea that he and the DM discussed his character and agreed to play it that way, and dug in as that was how it had to be played. Then if you went to the DM with him, the DM would have truly been in an awful spot, because they would have something they approved in direct conflict with something else at the table. He may not have been as willing to admit it was a mistake at that point.

Hopefully, the DM decides that this isn't working and talks to the other player, saying that the character is not working out as is and needs to be changed, either by having them start to work more with the group or by going with an entirely different character.

If not, I personally would have a hard time staying in the game. I couldn't play in a game where a specific character was intentionally being played as a horrible person because they want to spice up the game. These are cooperative games, and intentionally sabotaging the efforts of fellow players because 'that's what my character would do' is bad - if that's what your character would do, make another character. If everyone in the game is in agreement, then it's fine, but this is something that I think rips games apart.

StoneSeraph
2021-03-12, 02:21 PM
Well.

First, I would definitely say NTA. While it may be best to go directly to the player that you are in conflict with, the DM pretty much has to take the role of arbiter when things like this come up. Ideally, you would talk to the person, and if nothing could be resolved, you bring the DM in, but this doesn't seem like an egregious violation.

In fact, based on the answers from the DM, I think the way you went about it ended up being better. If you had talked to him, he may very well have fallen back on the idea that he and the DM discussed his character and agreed to play it that way, and dug in as that was how it had to be played. Then if you went to the DM with him, the DM would have truly been in an awful spot, because they would have something they approved in direct conflict with something else at the table. He may not have been as willing to admit it was a mistake at that point.

Hopefully, the DM decides that this isn't working and talks to the other player, saying that the character is not working out as is and needs to be changed, either by having them start to work more with the group or by going with an entirely different character.

If not, I personally would have a hard time staying in the game. I couldn't play in a game where a specific character was intentionally being played as a horrible person because they want to spice up the game. These are cooperative games, and intentionally sabotaging the efforts of fellow players because 'that's what my character would do' is bad - if that's what your character would do, make another character. If everyone in the game is in agreement, then it's fine, but this is something that I think rips games apart.

+1, well said.

GentlemanVoodoo
2021-03-12, 05:00 PM
Agree with Darth. However, I would also include in the discussion to define what is appropriate as "chaotic" type of actions. By doing so you set the ground rules of what behavior is acceptable and should further instances occur then you can tell of the bat this player is just being a butt. At first that is what it sounded like but their is the possibility the player may be playing an alignment unfamiliar to them. One never knows so something to consider in giving the benefit of a doubt.

One question though. What was the reactions of the other players and DM during the times he was attempting to sabotage you?

Darth Tom
2021-03-12, 06:06 PM
Totally agree with Darth Credence's statements above.

As for how to move forwards, it is always helpful if you can come to the table with suggestions: not only does this make you look like you're trying to help, but it also gives you the opportunity to gently nudge the outcome in the direction you want (by laying down your preferred outcome as a starting point, people tend to gravitate opinions toward that so as not to look like they're just saying "no").

In this situation, provided the character and not the player is the problem, and provided the DM and player accept that the antagonistic playstyle was not working out, a very simple, low-cost way forward is to treat it as the starting point for character development (which might appeal to your character in-game - character arc!). This might look like the player accepting that their character will become more favourable to cooperation and collaboration over time, and focus the antagonism on "character" elements. This should be simple enough, because Drow have a pretty horrible society by most norms, so this character will assume everyone works like that. Having them doubt that people can be generous, thinking that everything is a trap etc would make sense in-character without necessarily being obnoxious to play with. Also, if the other player and DM agrees that the character will get specific learning moments this offers them the opportunity to roleplay the change and you can all have fun exploring those changing dynamics.

Duff
2021-03-12, 06:33 PM
Also pretty much agree with Darth.

But also...
If the GM wanted to "spice things up" maybe a conversation between you*, the DM and "Spicy" can rebalance and work out a way to allow the extra spice the GM felt would be good without undermining anyone's fun. Maybe instead of Spicy trying to rile the crowd against you they should be providing amusing heckling for example
I say this because it seems like the GM wanted a bit of spice, but isn't happy that this is working

* You might be singular, or might be the rest of the party, depending on how Spicy impacts other people's enjoyment of the game

Friv
2021-03-13, 02:05 AM
According to the AITA parlance, I would go with NAH (No as here.) You have been operating under one social contract, which it sounds like was never codified. The GM isn't fully satisfied with it, and tried to amend it, but in doing so accidentally gave inaccurate info to the new player, who is playing according to a more extreme social contract than the GM intended.

The solution is to sit down and formalize what sorts and levels of PVP are okay. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but everyone should be on the same page.

And going to the GM to check first isn't bad, honestly. It can give you more info, as indeed it did.